In today's news...

[Lv1VillagerA]

Gun create more deaths because:
1-They don't need much training (easy to use)
2-They don't need much planning
3-They have no real defensive power
4-They are relatively cheap
So,
1-easy -> you'll have more successful/deadly assault over injuries/failed attempts
2-no planning -> you'll have more impulsive assaults over long term resentment among citizens
3-no defense -> people will tend to attack first if they think their opponent are about to attack instead of threatening/deterring them.
4-relatively cheap -> people have a higher chance to get it
No need to throw fancy statistics (especially when both pro and anti-guns sides have their fair share of fake statistics), guns are objectively dangerous and, within a large population, incidents are bound to happen.

Like any threat (avoidable or not, criminal or not, small or huge), you have to take measures and the US obviously adapted and took those, without going against gun ownership.
The US adapted laws, cop training, school prevention, intelligence agencies, psychological treatments, normalizing weapons, etc.
The US is somewhat successful while not having given up on guns, but hasn't lowered the gun threat to levels acceptable for a G7 country.
Once the you achieve that, you'll be able to call out the whole world for being stupid. For now, that's not the case and the you can't be so oblivious as to notice that the exact opposite is happening.

Definitely sounds like trolling up there, or maybe just someone who didn't do the research.

I'm sorry if you misunderstand me for being one of countless pretentious know-it-all jerks that throw regurgitated opinions at you or just troll you just because they know some people will be triggered by this. I understand those who don't respond if the first response that comes to their mind is calling me out for being a troll or for being stupid but I'm disappointed.

I'll never ever think of taking away guns from US citizens and I'm not saying guns are evil.
I'm saying the US have made the choice to allow their citizen to own a potentially dangerous weapon, they now have to deal with the consequences of having one more threat on their territory, regardless of the benefits armed citizen give to the country.

Once implemented, gun ban would significantly improve the US citizen average safety. That's what many countries observe and I agree with them. But a transitional state where the US take away the guns is not doable because:
1-the citizen are going disagree (it's against the their beliefs, and the US is still a democracy and has to listen to them)
2-the government is going to fail its duty to protect its citizen (they obviously won't feel secure if strangers have guns and they don't, and that's the a legitimate reason to start thinking about a revolt).

Things are not going to change so: You have guns, guns are awesome, be proud. People have guns, guns are a threat, be honest. I can correlate if you compare the gun threat with the airliner crash threat as you can not do anything about neither of them. It's just that the latter 'airliner' is significantly more likely to crash and to kill you. So might as well enjoy the flight.

I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, but because not taking a side is incredibly pointless and confusing, you can add me to the anti-NRA side.

 

[XSI]

You must be registered to see the links

This article is old, but was revamped february this year to show a direct correlation between gun availability and gun homicides. This is by no means contained to the US only, but there's a very clear and direct correlation that says "more guns = more murders"

Here's some bullet points for all you TLDR folks. Keep in mind this is comprised of data gathered by the guardian back in 2012 and by no means is a 100% accurate depiction of current day statistics, but it shows a clear enough picture.

- The United States has nearly twice as many guns per 100 people as the next closest country, Yemen — 88.8 guns per 100 as opposed to 54.8 in Yemen
- The United States has more than 12 times as many guns per person as Honduras, but the 2012 US gun homicide rate per 100,000 people (2.97) was 1/22 of Honduras's (68.43)
- "More guns are associated with more homicides across industrialized countries,"
- Another study, by

You must be registered to see the links

, found that the US has crime rates comparable to those in similarly developed countries, but much higher rates of lethal violence — owing in significant part to our high rates of gun ownership.
- A recent,

You must be registered to see the links

study found that once you control for general crime rates and other confounding factors like poverty, "each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership" translated to a 0.9 percent increase in homicides. A meta-analysis — study of studies — found a

You must be registered to see the links

among researchers that access to guns correlated with higher homicide rates in the United States.

"more guns = more murders"
You mean more gun murders, which to be fair do tend to succeed more often than things that the hospital can treat more reliably such as poison or blunt trauma, or things where there can be a struggle such as a knife or strangulation

Aside from that most of those bullet points seem about right, it is certainly true that guns make it a whole lot easier for an encounter to become lethal to someone involved, and it appears that the amount of guns does in fact do this. That's what they're made for- Otherwise we'd be talking tasers
But from that same study(Found

You must be registered to see the links

), and only taking this one because the other asks you pay to get it

For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of household gun ownership, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.9%
For each 1 percentage point increase in proportion of Black population, firearm homicide rate increased by 5.2%
For each 0.01 increase in Gini coefficient, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.6%
For each increase of 1/1000 in violent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 4.8%
For each increase of 1/1000 in nonviolent crime rate, firearm homicide rate increased by 0.8%
For each increase of 1/10 000 in incarceration rate, firearm homicide rate decreased by 0.5%

This basically tells me that violent crime rate, poverty(Specifically wealth inequality), and amount of black population is a much larger indication of firearms homicide than the gun ownership rate. It also does not appear to separate things by state, which is a bit of a problem if we want an answer to the question of whether guns cause it, since US states can vary immensely in how they deal with things such as guns and crime and how much these things occur, as they mention in there things could be very different for different states.
Still, interesting study, though even they admit that it's not possible to determine causality and it is possible that gun ownership rises in response to violent crimes rather than the other way around. Only that there is a link between guns becoming common and violent crimes
It doesn't really say too much. Just that it's more likely that a gun will be used when guns are available, as opposed to other potential murder weapons. Which honestly makes a lot of sense

Once implemented, gun ban would significantly improve the US citizen average safety. That's what many countries observe and I agree with them. But a transitional state where the US take away the guns is not doable because:
1-the citizen are going disagree (it's against the their beliefs, and the US is still a democracy and has to listen to them)
2-the government is going to fail its duty to protect its citizen (they obviously won't feel secure if strangers have guns and they don't, and that's the a legitimate reason to start thinking about a revolt).

Things are not going to change so: You have guns, guns are awesome, be proud. People have guns, guns are a threat, be honest. I can correlate if you compare the gun threat with the airliner crash threat as you can not do anything about neither of them. It's just that the latter 'airliner' is significantly more likely to crash and to kill you. So might as well enjoy the flight.

I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, but because not taking a side is incredibly pointless and confusing, you can add me to the anti-NRA side.

You seem reasonable, but a gun ban will not make things safer- The least safe places in the world tend to not allow guns. And internationally at least, gun bans haven't really helped or had a noticeable effect on crime rates compared to things such as healthcare, education, gainful employment, social programs and an homogenous population. All these and other factors contribute much more
Taking away the reason why crimes are committed just works better than taking away the tools. As London and its knife surrender bins show with their still-high crime rates
I would rather take a walk through a randomly selected US town with an 80%+ gun ownership rate than London's bad neighbourhoods


-----------
And to add on some..Well, it's not quite what I'd call news, but technically it counts

You must be registered to see the links

Couple Couldn't Conceive Because They'd Been Having Sex the Wrong Way for Four Years

The 'wrong way' meaning..Anal
I'm skeptical about this one, surely they can't be that stupid?

 

[Lv1VillagerA]

You must be registered to see the links

An article making fun of a distant country no one likes.
Hmm...

You must be registered to see the links

Sexism accusation + bad financial health
Hmmm....

You must be registered to see the links

Copy pasted article from other unreliable sources.
Hmmmmmmmm.....

Definitively a funny story but most likely fake news.

 

[super_slicer]

Oh my... you are grossly misinformed.

Gun create more deaths because:
1-They don't need much training (easy to use)
2-They don't need much planning
3-They have no real defensive power
4-They are relatively cheap
So,
1-easy -> you'll have more successful/deadly assault over injuries/failed attempts
2-no planning -> you'll have more impulsive assaults over long term resentment among citizens
3-no defense -> people will tend to attack first if they think their opponent are about to attack instead of threatening/deterring them.
4-relatively cheap -> people have a higher chance to get it
No need to throw fancy statistics (especially when both pro and anti-guns sides have their fair share of fake statistics), guns are objectively dangerous and, within a large population, incidents are bound to happen.

1- Not true. Have you ever fired a gun? I'll admit that shotguns and rifles at close range can be fairly easy to hit your target with
however, try hitting a moving target at more than 50ft away. Not to mention that these aren't easily concealed weapons, anyone with a brain can tell you're carrying something long and narrow on your person. Which leaves handguns, which ARE easy to conceal from the untrained eye. And are a bitch to use effectively without large amounts of training. I'm a pretty good shot with a rifle, but awful with a pistol.

2-What? If I want to kill a lot of people with my firearm I need to plan ahead, I've gotta buy extra ammunition and magazines. I also need to find a location where there ARE a large number of people and no police officers. Hell if I really want to do well I'll need to choose a location and time when officers are particularly slow to respond.

3-This is based on mindset, not whether you're using a gun or a... sword. An aggressive person will attack with little provocation while a passive person will attempt to dissuade anyone from doing them harm before defending themselves. I do think it particularly important to point out that there IS a correct action to take in the situation you've mentioned, and it doesn't involve letting the 'opponent' do whatever they want. You have the right to defend yourself from harm, there is nothing immoral or illegal about that, and the intent of your 'opponent' doesn't matter at that point as they have willingly chosen to put themselves in a situation where another perceives them as a threat to their health and wellbeing.

4- Compared to what? Nuclear warheads? If you're going to say something is relative you need to give us an example of what it relates to.

You do realize that guns don't have a monopoly on being dangerous... right? If you can't accept that then I really see no reason to continue this discussion further as you're being willfully ignorant.

Like any threat (avoidable or not, criminal or not, small or huge), you have to take measures and the US obviously adapted and took those, without going against gun ownership.
The US adapted laws, cop training, school prevention, intelligence agencies, psychological treatments, normalizing weapons, etc.
The US is somewhat successful while not having given up on guns, but hasn't lowered the gun threat to levels acceptable for a G7 country.
Once the you achieve that, you'll be able to call out the whole world for being stupid. For now, that's not the case and the you can't be so oblivious as to notice that the exact opposite is happening.

I think you're being influenced by skewed statistics. The U.S. has a higher population than all of the G7 countries except Japan combined (those poor bastards are really packed in and 127 million) of course it's going to have a higher number of violent incidents.

I'm sorry if you misunderstand me for being one of countless pretentious know-it-all jerks that throw regurgitated opinions at you or just troll you just because they know some people will be triggered by this. I understand those who don't respond if the first response that comes to their mind is calling me out for being a troll or for being stupid but I'm disappointed.

I'll never ever think of taking away guns from US citizens and I'm not saying guns are evil.
I'm saying the US have made the choice to allow their citizen to own a potentially dangerous weapon, they now have to deal with the consequences of having one more threat on their territory, regardless of the benefits armed citizen give to the country.

I'm not a very nice person and I was honestly checking whether or not you were trolling, this sub-forum has been rife with such for a long time and it'll take a while to dispel my skepticism.

Once implemented, gun ban would significantly improve the US citizen average safety. That's what many countries observe and I agree with them. But a transitional state where the US take away the guns is not doable because:
1-the citizen are going disagree (it's against the their beliefs, and the US is still a democracy and has to listen to them)
2-the government is going to fail its duty to protect its citizen (they obviously won't feel secure if strangers have guns and they don't, and that's the a legitimate reason to start thinking about a revolt).

Things are not going to change so: You have guns, guns are awesome, be proud. People have guns, guns are a threat, be honest. I can correlate if you compare the gun threat with the airliner crash threat as you can not do anything about neither of them. It's just that the latter 'airliner' is significantly more likely to crash and to kill you. So might as well enjoy the flight.

I'm not anti-gun or pro-gun, but because not taking a side is incredibly pointless and confusing, you can add me to the anti-NRA side.

To be perfectly honest I've lived the majority of my life without owning a firearm and not once felt the need for one, or that I would be any safer with it. The reason why I purchased my pistol? Because I needed my own to become an armed guard. The reason why I purchased my .22 rifle? to kill a pesky woodchuck that was tearing up my lawn (I couldn't hit it with the damn pistol XD ). If in the dead of night someone breaks into my home I won't be reaching for either, it'll be the cold steel of my Ka-Bar.

Lastly I'd like to address what you've said about a gun ban. While the reasons you gave may very well be the case, personally I'd find it completely unacceptable because I do not trust my government to that extent and I'm quite surprised that you trust yours. It has been very seldom that the U.S. government has represented my will and those occasions where it does have grown less and less over the years as corruption and self-service has eaten away at it's integrity to the point where, if given the option, I would have those in power cast out and the system that governs us replaced (but they're not executing people in the middle of the street yet, so nobody wants to lift a damn finger). To place my and my fellow citizens fates solely under such a body's care would be unconscionable.

 

[Lv1VillagerA]

Oh my... you are grossly misinformed.

1-I have already fired a gun. I know guns have ranges. Yes, it's hard to touch a moving target 50 ft away. But that doesn't mean guns are hard to use, that just means long range shooting on a single target is hard. I never pretended guns are all powerful, just that they are powerful enough to be a threat among civilians.

2-True, you need ammo and some preparations for a mass shooting. However that doesn't really fit the "impulsive assault" definition in my book. It would be more like this: me putting 1 bullet in the torso of each person that assaulted by cousin last week (and to openly plan do it again) if I meet them while I carry a gun.

3-I see the purely offensive purpose of guns as an issue for public safety. Yes you're right to defend yourself if you are threatened. And that's the whole point: from an objective point of view, you'll still kill/significantly injure a man. That incident would have been way smaller in a gun-free environment. You might disagree because I'm taking the POV of the State and not the victim, but note that the "aggressor" doesn't have to actually be carrying a gun. For example, a "mistaken" cop will be very quick to shoot you.

4-The manufacturing of guns is done on industrial scales so they are dirt cheap to produce. Even after the seller takes his juicy margin, you can still afford them. Surely you can spare a few hundred bucks and buy one. You don't need to have dozens of firearms.

-Yes I do realize guns have not the monopoly of being dangerous, I clearly stated it numerous times. That doesn't mean they are not a threat, and that doesn't mean that threat is negligible.
I'm under the impression you are not exactly seeing my arguments and you are arguing with things I didn't say. So please, understand that I'm not anti-gun (especially when some are... well... "stupid" was the world you used). If the beginning of my post make me look like an anti-gun militant to you, know you are making a grave mistake to consider speaking of the potential dangers of guns as speaking against guns.

-I'm not being influenced by skewed statistics, I clearly stated my skepticism about them. That's why I used points 1 to 4 to express how guns can boost crime rates/deaths. Only, then do I suggest you to look at the other countries comparable with the US (I take the other G7 members) and see how they manage and how do they perceive the US. Not once do I speak about stats. I would instead admit other countries tend to legitimize their own point of view so you can't take everything for truth without some basic proof-check. However at that point, I'm not trying to convince you, but to persuade you (and I see this rang an alarm bell... well persuasion doesn't work on some individuals ).

About not trusting a corrupted government: I did not consider this and I totally see your point.

 

[Byzantine2014]

News of sorts: Far-right protesters in Chemnitz, Germany over the stabbing of a 35 year old were met by an anti-Nazi counter protest, and injuries occurred. Details on the stabbing itself seem fuzzy.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Wonder if this is going to start boiling over...

 

[Cyriel]

News of sorts: Far-right protesters in Chemnitz, Germany over the stabbing of a 35 year old were met by an anti-Nazi counter protest, and injuries occurred. Details on the stabbing itself seem fuzzy.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

Wonder if this is going to start boiling over...

Any kind of protest that is pro far right, leaning towards the extreme and anything related to nazi's, hitler, etc will get the fuck stomped out right quick if there's any further escalation.
Germany does not fuck around when it comes to that. There's a very good reason a large portion of vidya is still super censored / altered and their tolerance towards absolute bullshit behaviour like this is next to none.

Honestly i'm surprised they didnt field anti riot troops right away.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

Any kind of protest that is pro far right, leaning towards the extreme and anything related to nazi's, hitler, etc will get the fuck stomped out right quick if there's any further escalation. Germany does not fuck around when it comes to that. There's a very good reason a large portion of vidya is still super censored / altered and their tolerance towards absolute bullshit behaviour like this is next to none.

That last point and the one I omitted have nothing to do with the news story Byzantine posted. I'm going to get the vitriol out of the way by calling you a dumbass and an uninformed asshat who needs to really open their eyes before ever posting again. Good? Good.

So, the problem isn't nazi's. I mean, no nazi is a good nazi, so, let's not dance around that point. The German people, however, feel like they have been abandoned by their government and are a people under siege by an invading aggressor. Oh, and btw, this isn't a recent thing. Something the media doesn't focus on, but alternative news media does, is the migrant rape gangs, terror attacks, assaults, etc. There's also those 13yo girls who were raped and told by the German government to shut up about it because it might expose how barbaric these people are. Not all of the migrants are that bad, btw, but a good number of them are.

Let's not even talk about other places like the UK or France, where, while not as bad to date iirc, are still being victimized by migrants who refuse to assimilate. So, no, I don't think there's anything wrong with a people (The German's in this case) radicalizing and taking to the streets to protest and whatever else they feel is necessary. You're damned right they not only have the right to protect themselves and theirs, but to do so in force if their government refuses to. Hell, that an anti-immigration party gained a significant presence in parliament should tell you something. This is less about "nazi's and violence=bad" and more about "people are scared and are willing to side with whoever offers to make them less scared." Don't try to paint it as anything else.

 

[XSI]

I would not be surprised if it turned out Merkel was actually doing things as wrong as possible just so the German people will become right wing again
After all, every single policy and action taken by the German(And most western) governments in the last 20-30 years seems to be designed to get the people to take action into their own hands, while giving them easily identified targets and a shitload of reasons, along with a complete refusal to listen to the people and solve problems

It all seems like this was their goal all along
Or maybe these governments are just incredibly incompetent, corrupt, and controlled by people who never thought the people are worth listening to at all

 

[Cyriel]

That last point and the one I omitted have nothing to do with the news story Byzantine posted. I'm going to get the vitriol out of the way by calling you a dumbass and an uninformed asshat who needs to really open their eyes before ever posting again. Good? Good.

So, the problem isn't nazi's. I mean, no nazi is a good nazi, so, let's not dance around that point. The German people, however, feel like they have been abandoned by their government and are a people under siege by an invading aggressor. Oh, and btw, this isn't a recent thing. Something the media doesn't focus on, but alternative news media does, is the migrant rape gangs, terror attacks, assaults, etc. There's also those 13yo girls who were raped and told by the German government to shut up about it because it might expose how barbaric these people are. Not all of the migrants are that bad, btw, but a good number of them are.

Let's not even talk about other places like the UK or France, where, while not as bad to date iirc, are still being victimized by migrants who refuse to assimilate. So, no, I don't think there's anything wrong with a people (The German's in this case) radicalizing and taking to the streets to protest and whatever else they feel is necessary. You're damned right they not only have the right to protect themselves and theirs, but to do so in force if their government refuses to. Hell, that an anti-immigration party gained a significant presence in parliament should tell you something. This is less about "nazi's and violence=bad" and more about "people are scared and are willing to side with whoever offers to make them less scared." Don't try to paint it as anything else.

From the actual article linked:

The police in Saxony said on Tuesday that several people had been treated for injuries sustained in the clashes Monday night. Ten people are being investigated for giving the Hitler salute, they said.

... yeah ok.

Now i could start pulling your thing apart etc etc but i'm not going to because you'll hopefully realize that what you just did was quote possibly the dumbest thing ever. Especially that whole "let's insult this guy" part.

I live next to germany currently. I've lived in germany for a good portion of my life. This is not new. This happens fairly regularly as of late, just not in such dramatic fashion.
Regardless of what the protest is about, anything like the above happens, it ends pretty much instantly.

Now we can do two things. You can start contesting me on how what i said was irrelevant, how i should never post again, maybe some more OG insults mixed in, or we can call it a day. Won't change a thing. This whole thing got deadlocked the second someone started doing actual nazi things since that is pretty much the largest nope possible in all of germany.

You could protest the amount of puppies being adopted and drag that out for days, but the second someone starts doing anything hitlerey in such a protest, it ends. Game over. Sabotaged your own argument regardless of what side you're protesting for.

Good? Good.

Here's some stuff you can read to educate yourself on germany's policy regarding shit like this.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

And not directly relevant but equally damning:

You must be registered to see the links

That was last year btw. Shit happens a lot.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

... yeah ok.

Now i could start pulling your thing apart etc etc but i'm not going to because you'll hopefully realize that what you just did was quote possibly the dumbest thing ever. Especially that whole "let's insult this guy" part.

Given it wasn't a quote and was my own words, the "you're a dumbass" part is henceforth reinforced.

I live next to germany currently. I've lived in germany for a good portion of my life. This is not new. This happens fairly regularly as of late, just not in such dramatic fashion.
Regardless of what the protest is about, anything like the above happens, it ends pretty much instantly.

Supremacists are a vocal fringe group in a country? Say it ain't so! And they're well-established in parts of the US and Canada? That's impossible! And no, it doesn't happen "pretty much instantly." Nothing will stop those same nazi's from protesting, same as nothing will stop the lefties from trying to pick a fight and getting their shit slapped for it.

Now we can do two things. You can start contesting me on how what i said was irrelevant, how i should never post again, maybe some more OG insults mixed in, or we can call it a day.

Okay, first, you don't demand a closure of an argument because you got called out on saying something retarded and trying to establish a correlation between two different things. What is the correlation between Germany's viewpoint on censorship and a bunch of fringe-political protesters expressing discontent over one of several incidences involving non-citizens? Please, explain your reasoning.

Won't change a thing. This whole thing got deadlocked the second someone started doing actual nazi things since that is pretty much the largest nope possible in all of germany.

Deadlocked how? You're assuming those protesters or similarly-aligned political groups are gonna somehow back down from their views and beliefs over this one incident. That's not how anything works and I'm convinced you're trolling at this point.

You could protest the amount of puppies being adopted and drag that out for days, but the second someone starts doing anything hitlerey in such a protest, it ends. Game over. Sabotaged your own argument regardless of what side you're protesting for.

Yeah, no. First and foremost, just because someone zieg heil's to Powerwolf doesn't mean shit. That's a fringe minority at best making a jackass of themselves, same as you are doing right now. If that were the case, Trump would never have been elected, Brexit would never have received a majority vote, and Putin would never have attained the power he has. Your "side" doesn't lose face because you make a jackass of yourself. You lose face. Your "side" can weather your stupidity so long as they don't make a habit of inviting that kind of idiocy with open arms.

Second, puppies don't stab people, run them over with trucks, demand the native population bow to their demands, etc. Your comparison doesn't work unless the audience is full of retards.

Here's some stuff you can read to educate yourself on germany's policy regarding shit like this.

You must be registered to see the links

You must be registered to see the links

And not directly relevant but equally damning:

You must be registered to see the links

That was last year btw. Shit happens a lot.

I don't care what their policy on nazism is or how they handle such cases. That was never the relevant topic, nor did I allude to it. At all. How you managed that degree of reaching is impressive and a bit worrying.

 

[Cyriel]

Etc

Won't change a thing.

This is germany, not the US.

You do dumb nazi shit like the hitler salute in the US, people look at you weird.
In germany you get prosecuted. Note how i quoted 10 individuals being investigated. From the actual article. From the entire point i made regarding germany's stance on such practices.
There's a very good reason swastikas, anything nazi germany propaganda, symbolism or otherwise is pretty much banned.

If you for example have some kooky white power rally in the US, people just get upset. In germany, if you field any of the popular imagery associated with such, they come after you.
I think it's possible you're confusing this kind of protest with one under different guidelines, and with that you missed the whole point of that post i made.

Good day. Oh and never post again, dumbass, trolling, and so on, etc.

 

[XSI]

Good day. Oh and never post again, dumbass, trolling, and so on, etc.

Now thats just rude

 

[Cyriel]

Now thats just rude

I'm going to get the vitriol out of the way by calling you a dumbass and an uninformed asshat who needs to really open their eyes before ever posting again. Good? Good.

Way to go picking sides there buddy.

 

[XSI]

I didn't read the big wall of text and just scrolled to the bottom
And that's where you were rude

 

[Turrican]

I tell you something very profound about this subject.

Unfortunately, Nazism or communism or any form of extremism will return (if not now) in another form, but this time because of the democratic system of today, not only in Europe, but also the whole world, for the continuous errors, underestimation of the situation, prefer to help companies that workers etc ... (because the list is long), as a result of the popular discontent due to the disappointments of politicians who do not give the promises, but they are in the armchair to take the cramming to do nothing, and change party in protest, like Greece and Italy.
He was right the great Pope Wojtiwa said: if these democracies begin to lose their mission the IS people FIRST PLACE, totaliralism returns in a new format.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

This is germany, not the US.

And this is real life, not your fantasy world.

You do dumb nazi shit like the hitler salute in the US, people look at you weird.

Proving how loose a grasp you have on reality. You do a nazi salute in the US, people ostracize you unless you're among like-minded peers.

In germany you get prosecuted. Note how i quoted 10 individuals being investigated. From the actual article. From the entire point i made regarding germany's stance on such practices.
There's a very good reason swastikas, anything nazi germany propaganda, symbolism or otherwise is pretty much banned.

Yes, and..? How does that relate to people protesting a hot-button topic?

If you for example have some kooky white power rally in the US, people just get upset. In germany, if you field any of the popular imagery associated with such, they come after you.

So, you are a shut-in, then, cause in the last couple years alone, a group called Antifa has actually been making noise what with going after white nationalists, among other groups. This isn't actually a recent thing, either. White nationalist groups have been considered fringe for quite some time, and they have a bitch of a time getting catering groups and such to provide them a space, food, etc for their events. That's in the US alone. Not as bad as being prosecuted, but not exactly some people "getting upset."

Also, you're failing to recognize 2 things. The first is, the German police aren't infallible. They miss things, same as any other police force. You're also assuming most people have ever been open about their nazi alignments, which, most wouldn't be. They are certainly aware of the bad rep nazism and such gets, and until recently, were seldom willing to publicly declare their dedication to such an ideology. Seriously, dude, you're assuming the world is so simple, when it's not.

I think it's possible you're confusing this kind of protest with one under different guidelines, and with that you missed the whole point of that post i made.

I'm not confusing jack. You suggested that violence and symbolism being banned in video games correlates to people siding with white nationalists in a protest against immigration. I've asked you thrice, now, to explain how these two things correlate, to which you've so far failed.

Good day. Oh and never post again, dumbass, trolling, and so on, etc.

Way to go picking sides there buddy.

First, you don't tell anyone what to do. You are a nobody making a jackass of themselves, with a very shallow grasp on how reality works. You've contributed nothing of value and, when pressed, have tried to force the discussion into a territory nobody alluded to, just so you didn't have to admit your shallow correlations don't make any sense. You've doubled/tripled/quadrupled-down on this, further establishing you're either a troll or incapable of higher brain functionality. I'll go with the latter, though, cause you then accuse someone of taking sides when their post didn't allude to anything of the sort. They called you rude. If you don't like people calling you out, you're welcome to leave at your own convenience. Otherwise, grow a thick skin, stop saying stupid shit, and lurk more.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

I would not be surprised if it turned out Merkel was actually doing things as wrong as possible just so the German people will become right wing again
After all, every single policy and action taken by the German(And most western) governments in the last 20-30 years seems to be designed to get the people to take action into their own hands, while giving them easily identified targets and a shitload of reasons, along with a complete refusal to listen to the people and solve problems

It all seems like this was their goal all along
Or maybe these governments are just incredibly incompetent, corrupt, and controlled by people who never thought the people are worth listening to at all

I want to say incompetent, since Justin Trudeau is best pals with Merkel and manages to be equally incompetent in every way. He's basically handed the UCP the next election, and has only made the argument that "they're racist because they have a view on my immigration policy that doesn't match my own views." It's like when the democrats handed Trump the vote.

 

[Cyriel]

Proving how loose a grasp you have on reality. You do a nazi salute in the US, people ostracize you unless you're among like-minded peers.

Yep, but not banned by law. You should know that if you read the stuff i posted, which you clearly did not, so you have no mindset to even try and grasp the differences between a nazi protest in the US and a nazi protest in germany.

So, you are a shut-in, then, cause in the last couple years alone, a group called Antifa has actually been making noise what with going after white nationalists, among other groups. This isn't actually a recent thing, either. White nationalist groups have been considered fringe for quite some time, and they have a bitch of a time getting catering groups and such to provide them a space, food, etc for their events. That's in the US alone. Not as bad as being prosecuted, but not exactly some people "getting upset."

Yep, and you still don't get prosecuted for it there. In germany you do. I do sincerely hope you get that part now.
There's this whole thing called freedom of speech, which is super nice and very grey area. In germany you have that too. Want to guess what happens in the US compared to Germany when you do something retarded like... say, debate the holocaust? Or hitler salutes in public places?
There's a reason i'm still talking to you about it because it's concerning how little you seem to understand regarding these things when it comes to other countries. I've now tried 4 times to explain it in the most clear way possible and you still don't seem to get it.

Also, you're failing to recognize 2 things. The first is, the German police aren't infallible. They miss things, same as any other police force. You're also assuming most people have ever been open about their nazi alignments, which, most wouldn't be. They are certainly aware of the bad rep nazism and such gets, and until recently, were seldom willing to publicly declare their dedication to such an ideology. Seriously, dude, you're assuming the world is so simple, when it's not.

Naturally. There's a pretty extreme right wing government party in germany calling shots. If they ever openly do anything that is literally fucking banned, they get thrown out. Do you get it now? Please get the point this time. Please.

I'm not confusing jack. You suggested that violence and symbolism being banned in video games correlates to people siding with white nationalists in a protest against immigration. I've asked you thrice, now, to explain how these two things correlate, to which you've so far failed.

Yeah that's a very odd thing to get hung up on. I said there's a good reason they censor video games and that was mentioned once. Every other time it's been about germany outright banning shit like that, as in that it's fucking illegal. How you keep circling back here is beyond me and while relevant, the whole point is lost on you it seems. It's like you're trying to prove to me how shallow your mindset is if you cannot even look up the fucking laws of a country that spawned one of the most hateful group of people in the entire history of mankind.

Now i'm going to go somewhere else, and you can literally get fucked for all i care. I've tried to be polite and explain it as best i can but you seem to go out of your way to just be obnoxious about it.
I just sincerely hope that you at least try to grasp the concept of "Different countries have different laws".

There's a good reason i didn't debate the entire gun control post a while back, because i have no fucking clue about shit like that, so i am smart and keep my mouth shut while trying to at least educate myself about the political ramifications.
Stronly suggest you at least try to do the same.

 

[Ninja_Named_Bob]

Yep, but not banned by law. You should know that if you read the stuff i posted, which you clearly did not, so you have no mindset to even try and grasp the differences between a nazi protest in the US and a nazi protest in germany.

It's a basic concept, you fucking tool. Why you're harping on the matter and being an ass about it, nobody can grasp. Hell, it's clear as day to everyone except you that your original point wasn't even relevant to the news stories that Byzantine posted. Feel free to talk about different laws and different countries when it's relevant. Don't just force your views into a discussion where they aren't relevant.

Oh, and you telling anyone they have no mindset to grasp something is hilariously ironic.

Lots of irrelevant shit nobody cared about to begin with

As quoted, nobody ever gave a shit in this thread except you, what is illegal in Germany and what isn't. You've gone so far off-topic you've stopped being coherent.

Naturally. There's a pretty extreme right wing government party in germany calling shots. If they ever openly do anything that is literally fucking banned, they get thrown out. Do you get it now? Please get the point this time. Please.

If a hard-right party ever took hold in Germany and ushered in the fourth reich, they wouldn't be imprisoned because they would hold the power. A ruling party can adjust laws to their own whim if they possess a unified majority, assuming it's not constitutionally-written and thusly falls under supreme court authority. It's why retards like you are triggered by Trump, too. If he felt inclined to, he could replace the supreme court justices with his own sycophantic ass-kissers who would provide him with favorable rulings at every turn. If he were inclined, and had the full support of a majority government to do so.

You talk about others being uneducated, but you really don't know shit about the stuff you claim to know.

More childish shit

Actually, you issued the point without context, and refused to elaborate in a manner that made it relevant to the news story. How this concept is beyond your comprehension is both deeply concerning (that you're that dense) and singularly impressive. So, again, how is what you mentioned about censorship relevant to far-right protests opposing immigration? And please, try this time. Like, actually try to not look as stupid as you already do.

Now i'm going to go somewhere else, and you can literally get fucked for all i care. I've tried to be polite and explain it as best i can but you seem to go out of your way to just be obnoxious about it. I just sincerely hope that you at least try to grasp the concept of "Different countries have different laws".

As stated before, the "different countries have different laws" thing was never fucking relevant to the news stories that you quoted, nor was your censorship point. When pressed to elaborate the correlation, you've been belligerent and indignant, and quite rude. You've tried to bullshit in the most obvious way, rather than explaining your fucking point. This isn't a hard concept for a child, so how the fuck are you so dense? Seriously, dude.

There's a good reason i didn't debate the entire gun control post a while back, because i have no fucking clue about shit like that, so i am smart and keep my mouth shut while trying to at least educate myself about the political ramifications.
Stronly suggest you at least try to do the same.

Except I've educated myself and stayed on topic. Again, you're in no position to speak. You failed to elaborate on your original point, became belligerent, and can't even manage the humility to admit you fucked up. Seriously, dude. Get your head out of your ass.